MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157899305 · doi:10.5376/ijh.2021.11.0001

Effect of Growth Regulators on Rooting of Carnation (<i>Dianthus caryophyllus</i>) Tissue Culture Seedlings

2021· article· en· W3157899305 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lu Jingjie, Xijile Bao, Mengdi Zhang, Yongxiu Zhao, Qiqige Alatan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Horticulture · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant tissue culture and regeneration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarnationDianthusTissue cultureBiologyHorticultureGrowth regulatorPlant growthBotanySodium hypochloriteSterilization (economics)ChemistryIn vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to understand the effects of different growth regulators and their concentrations on the rooting culture of carnation tissue culture seedlings, the optimal growth regulators and their concentrations were explored by adding different concentrations of IAA and IBA to the basic culture medium for tissue culture experiments and observing the rooting and growth of carnation tissue culture seedlings. The results showed that the sterilization effect of 10% sodium hypochlorite for 4 min was the best; the root length and number of roots in MS medium were significantly higher than that in 1/2 MS and 2 MS medium, and the roots were faster, the rooting rate was high, and the plant growth was good; IAA and IBA of 1.0 mg/L were all conducive to the root elongation, and significantly increased the number of roots, the rest of the concentration promoting effect was not significant, and the high concentration would inhibit the root growth. The growth of the plants treated with IBA was better, and the best was 1.0 mg/L IBA, which was most conducive to the rooting culture of carnation. The above results provide further theoretical basis for in vitro rapid propagation and industrial production of carnation cut flowers.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of HorticultureSame topicPlant tissue culture and regenerationFrench-language works237,207